On Monday, May 9, 2005, 2:46:08 PM, Ian wrote:
IH> On Mon, 9 May 2005, Chris Lilley wrote:
>>
>> Not really. CSS can
>>
>> a) require xml:id support
>> b) requires that if CSS is supported AND xml:id is supported THEN xml:id
>> be treated as ID for the purpose of selectors
>> c) forbid xml:id support
>> d) leave it wooly and ambiguous
IH> Options a and c are out of scope of CSS.
No, they aren't. They are possibilities. I would not recommend c, and
don't think a is suitable for CSS2.1, but listed them for completenes.
IH> Option b sounds reasonable
I thought so.
IH> but in reality is the tip of the iceberg, as then we would also have
IH> to list the bazillion other ways of having IDs, and would have to
IH> track each and every other way of defining IDs.
Not so, as Henry already commented.
IH> Option d is obviously bad.
Yes. Good, I don't have to ask for my sheep back.
IH> There is also an option e, and that is the option that the working
IH> group is following. That is, CSS requires that the ID selector match
IH> an element that has the given ID. It then leaves the other specs to
IH> define what IDs an element has. It is up to xml:id to say that it
IH> gives an element an ID.
That option would result in no xml:id tests in the test suite, I assume?
So, it would not really help in establishing an interoperable ID
mechanism that works even without DTDs.
IH> It is then up to the xml:id specification, or some other
IH> specification, to state that xml:id attributes are of type ID.
IH> Unfortunately, the xml:id specification explicitly doesn't say this.
Huh??
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-xml-id-20050208/#dt-id-assignment
[Definition: The process of ID type assignment causes an xml:id
attribute value to be an ID.]
You know, that seems pretty clear to me.
IH> But that is a problem with the xml:id spec (which I raised at last
IH> call), not a problem with the CSS spec.
--
Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org
Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
W3C Graphics Activity Lead